Christians in the main stream of religion today worship what they are taught to worship.They are taught Jesus is a Trinity god, burning fire punishment for the wicked, that you have an immortal soul, and that you will be raptured in the flesh to heaven. All unscriptural teachings.

Christians in the Christian religions today do what they are told to do by their consciences or ministers and priests. They follow that religious instruction if they are devout in their worship to that religions worship.

They do not worship Jehovah God, the God of the prophets or the God of Jesus and the apostles,John 4:21

People can make the Bible say what they want it to say, but God's word has never changed. If you really want to know God, and what he wants from you as his child, read your Bible everyday.

the bible itself is the best proof that the god character in it is the most loathesome, evil and murderous character ever invented and it's good side is the ego manic and homicidal jealousy inferiority complex.

Christians in the main stream of religion today worship what they are taught to worship.They are taught Jesus is a Trinity god, burning fire punishment for the wicked, that you have an immortal soul, and that you will be raptured in the flesh to heaven. All unscriptural teachings.Christians in the Christian religions today do what they are told to do by their consciences or ministers and priests. They follow that religious instruction if they are devout in their worship to that religions worship.They do not worship Jehovah God, the God of the prophets or the God of Jesus and the apostles,John 4:21People can make the Bible say what they want it to say, but God's word has never changed. If you really want to know God, and what he wants from you as his child, read your Bible everyday.

Hi there. You are not really responding to the topic under discussion but make some vague allegations. Can we keep to the topic? What are your views on the God of the Bible being unreasonable? Please also indicate why you believe it.

<quoted text>Evolution is not something to be believed in like religious claims, it is something to be studied and learned as it has evidence to support it.<quoted text>Yardstick? Why would I require one?

Hi there. You are quite correct, evolution does not come with a set of "standards" for our behaviour.The question at hand is the "unreasonableness" of God and thus you have to have a standard against which to judge whether an act is unreasonable.

Hi. You know the question for me is not whether I can prove them wrong. The major issue is to bring the truth according to the Bible to them and allow the Holy Spirit to convince his elected of sin and bring them into a loving relationship with the God of the universe.Have a relly great Christmas.

sorry, facts aren't claimsthe bible itself is the best proof that the god character in it is the most loathesome, evil and murderous character ever invented and it's good side is the ego manic and homicidal jealousy inferiority complex.or is god just misunderstood because he has serious Daddy issues

Atheism isn't a "religion". It has no dogmas or creeds or tenets to bind people together. If you cannot understand what atheism is, then you'll never be able to have a reasoned conversation with anyone who is atheistic.

Atheism, in its simplist form, is NOT a claim that god is dis-proved, just that god is un-proved.(Hugh difference.)

There is no other statement which can be made that can in any way group all atheists together.

<quoted text>Hi there. You are quite correct, evolution does not come with a set of "standards" for our behaviour.

Neither does gravity. Neither does chemistry. You're really not making since here. Some people believe that evolution is guided by a god. You seem to be of a mindset that evolution is somehow a religion or somehow related to one's philisophical approach to life. It's not.

The question at hand is the "unreasonableness" of God and thus you have to have a standard against which to judge whether an act is unreasonable.

I don't need a religion or a book of primitive superstition to set such standards. I define morality as what is in the best interests of humanity, and acts that intentionally harm others are immoral. Not every person holds the same standards, and a book and/or particular belief system isn't going to change that. People can quote scripture to support their good intentions, but people can just as easily use it to justify their immoral, hateful and destructive dogmas.

<quoted text>Hi there. You are quite correct, evolution does not come with a set of "standards" for our behaviour.

Neither does gravity. Neither does chemistry. You're really not making since here. Some people believe that evolution is guided by a god. You seem to be of a mindset that evolution is somehow a religion or somehow related to one's philisophical approach to life. It's not.

<quoted text>I don't need a religion or a book of primitive superstition to set such standards. I define morality as what is in the best interests of humanity, and acts that intentionally harm others are immoral. Not every person holds the same standards, and a book and/or particular belief system isn't going to change that. People can quote scripture to support their good intentions, but people can just as easily use it to justify their immoral, hateful and destructive dogmas.

You have your standards and I have mine. Then how do you define reasonable (the topic)- as what is reasonable for one is not so for the next? Also refer to your reference to hateful etc which implies some standard?

You are quite correct that the Bible is often used to ostrasize people, judge them and "Christians" become self righteous. That is a far cry from what Christianity should be and definitely not what a born again person should be. Yes, I am often ashamed of the way we treat others of different views- and am sometimes also guilty of that.

Jesus actually teaches that we should love those that hate us, be good to those that persecute us. And my dear friend, that is totally opposite to my normal human/"carnal" nature.

This is not to suggest that there are no people outside of the Christian faith live exemplary (what is that if there is no standard)lives. That is a major difference with Christianity - real Christians realise that we are all sinners and before a fair judge will stand guilty. That is when one realises the need for a "Saviour" that has taken the punishment upon himself- without deserving it and by grace alone.

I have deviated somewhat and trust you will bear with me. Have a great time. Regards

<quoted text>Neither does gravity. Neither does chemistry. You're really not making since here. Some people believe that evolution is guided by a god. You seem to be of a mindset that evolution is somehow a religion or somehow related to one's philisophical approach to life. It's not.

Hi. I am not neccesarily implying that evolution is a religion, although I am sure that a case could be made. I was merely referring to the fact that the evolution theory suggest creation was a "fluke", that we have developed from very basic life forms and thus by implication there is no "moral" or "unreasonable" behaviour.

To suggest that the acceptance of evolution does not have a bearing on philosophical approach is not quite true. What is your view for instance on the purpose of life? Would that be different from that of a Muslim/Christian/Buddist?

Sorry, Andre, you're veering off topic now. The topic is not whether evolution or creationism is reasonable. The question is do some people feel that the christian god is unreasonable. Evolution's got nothing to do with the question.

If I accepted the christian god as real, I would feel that the god is unreasonable. What else can you think of a god who commands people to kill others, including their own children? Pretty unreasonable requests, don't you think? How reasonable is it to think that a god could convince anyone that a virgin gave birth? Or that the world was created in its entirety, in 6 days?

<quoted text>You have your standards and I have mine. Then how do you define reasonable (the topic)- as what is reasonable for one is not so for the next? Also refer to your reference to hateful etc which implies some standard?

You are quite correct that the Bible is often used to ostrasize people, judge them and "Christians" become self righteous. That is a far cry from what Christianity should be and definitely not what a born again person should be. Yes, I am often ashamed of the way we treat others of different views- and am sometimes also guilty of that.Jesus actually teaches that we should love those that hate us, be good to those that persecute us. And my dear friend, that is totally opposite to my normal human/"carnal" nature.This is not to suggest that there are no people outside of the Christian faith live exemplary (what is that if there is no standard)lives. That is a major difference with Christianity - real Christians realise that we are all sinners and before a fair judge will stand guilty. That is when one realises the need for a "Saviour" that has taken the punishment upon himself- without deserving it and by grace alone.I have deviated somewhat and trust you will bear with me. Have a great time. Regards

You contradict yourself heavily in this post by asking me to lay out how I determine certain standards then later acknowledge that most of your fellow Christians don't follow the standards laid-out for them. That should answer your question in itself if you have any capacity for critical thinking and honesty.

>>>AndreThe question at hand is the "unreasonableness" of God and thus you have to have a standard against which to judge whether an act is unreasonable.

You have your standards and I have mine. Then how do you define reasonable (the topic)- as what is reasonable for one is not so for the next? Also refer to your reference to hateful etc which implies some standard?

>>>GilletteHe answered quite clearly earlier that his "standard" is his own personal sense of right or wrong based on causing injury.

His standard is personal and relative. That's all we ALL have.

There is no such thing as absolute morality or absolute moral laws. Every opinion that human beings have and express about moral laws and right or wrong, etc.(whether that opinion is held by an individual or by a religious or societal group) is a relative, subjective personal opinion.

And while the Theory of Evolution proposes no moral standards, etc., mankind's sense of right or wrong, or their feelings of altruism, probably evolved out of the natural selection process of evolution.

That is, during the tens of thousands of years in which early humanity evolved out of ape-like ancestors and began to form social groups and hunt (and later gather and farm) together, a behavior of not hurting others or stealing ("Do unto others...etc." as some religions later formulated it) tended to make its practitioners lead longer and more peaceful lives, thus increasing the chances that they would reproduce more and pass down the particular combination of genes that inclined them to be more altruistic (i.e. "moral") in their behavior.

In sum, what you might call "good moral behavior" increased the fitness of those individuals to survive, and thus was selected for by evolution.

>>>AndreHi. I am not neccesarily implying that evolution is a religion, although I am sure that a case could be made.

>>>GilletteAnd we are sure that such a case CANNOT be successfully made. Indeed, if you would care to try ands make one, I'm sure we could quite easily shoot it down.:)

>>>AndreI was merely referring to the fact that the evolution theory suggest creation was a "fluke", that we have developed from very basic life forms and thus by implication there is no "moral" or "unreasonable" behaviour.

<quoted text>Hi. I am not neccesarily implying that evolution is a religion, although I am sure that a case could be made. I was merely referring to the fact that the evolution theory suggest creation was a "fluke", that we have developed from very basic life forms and thus by implication there is no "moral" or "unreasonable" behaviour.To suggest that the acceptance of evolution does not have a bearing on philosophical approach is not quite true. What is your view for instance on the purpose of life? Would that be different from that of a Muslim/Christian/Buddist?

You obviously do not understand anything at all about biological evolution or the definition of a scientific theory. Therefore, you probably shouldn't comment in these areas.

Suffice it to say that our current understanding of biological evolution gives us a model with which we can predict to some degree of accuracy the future results of biological processes. This in turn has greatly improved crop yields, animal husbandry, human healthcare, etc. There is no other model that can make any testable predictions, so why don't we just make the best use we can of the only working model we have.

Be that as it may, the biological processes that lead to socialization within a number of different species does lend itself very well to the development of universal "morals", or more accurately, ethical ways of living within a societal structure.

As far as the "purpose of life" question goes. Non theistic thought has nothing specific to say. Some, such as Buddhists have one idea, Jainists have a different idea, non-religious atheists have a variety of ideas. In all cases, these philosophical musings existed long before there was any theory for biological evolution, so your question is meaningless.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.